|
Thanks to Marie E. Wilson who sent this Q from Siegels!
Sam had developed a secret-formula sauce that makes hamburgers taste better.
Frank asked Sam about the rights to the commercial use of the sauce. Sam
replied that he was willing to sell these rights, but that he wanted
$40,000. Frank said he would think it over.
The next day Sam tried to call Frank to tell him that he had changed his
mind and wanted $50,000 instead of $40,000,, but he could not reach Frank.
When they met for lunch two days later, Frank told Sam that $40,000 was all
right. Sam replied that it was too late; that the price would be $50,000.
Frank then said: "I don't know about all this and want to see my lawyer
about the $40,000 deal that I have accepted. But just in case, let's keep
the $50,000 deal open for a week." Sam replied: "If you want me to keep
the deal open, you ought to pay for lunch today."
Frank agreed to pay for the lunch, and he and Sam drafted a memorandum
saying that Sam offered to sell to Frank the right to use his hamburger
sauce if Frank would agree to pay Sam $50,000 within thirty days after
accepting the offer. The memorandum also stated that in return for Frank's
paying for lunch on that day Sam agreed to keep the offer open for one week.
They both singed the memorandum. Then Sam said: "Look, if you can't pay
the $50,000 right away, I would be willing to take $40,000 plus 20% of your
net profits for a year instead." Frank replied: "I'll think about it," but
they did not alter the memorandum.
When the lunch bill was presented, Frank discovered that he had forgotten
his wallet, so Sam paid for both of them.
Five days later Sam told Frank the deal was off. Frank replied: "No it
isn't. I hereby accept your offer to let me use the sauce for $40,000 plus
20% of my net profits for one year." Sam said: "Since you didn't pay for
lunch and since the $40,000 plus 20% offer wasn't contained in our written
agreement, there isn't even an offer you can prove in court!"
Does Frank have any rights against Sam? Discuss.
|
